This is all pretty interesting to me.
In my experience, the "normal cement splice" is, if well made, very
strong. I trust that Scott is right about the greater strength of (4).
I sometimes point out to students the visibility of splices in Deren and
others. They do tell you that the edits were made in the editing room,
not in camera.
I wonder when A&B arose in 16mm. It was very common by the 1960s. Was it
even "a thing" in 1943? Perhaps, as by then 16mm was used by
"professionals."
In my own experience, A&B printing did /not/ cost a huge amount more in
the late 1960s. It was also possible in super-8 in the 1970s. It didn't
require a printer that could read timing marks if you wanted a one-light
print.
Cement splices are visible in early Brakhage films. He himself said he
tried to work with these bars, for example connecting them to landscape.
Eventually he quit with that. I found it really interesting when he
explained that he could not ever A&B roll from workprint because he knew
he could not "conform," but would simply make a different film. His
solution, starting sometime in the 1970s, was to insert two frames of
black at every splice. The slightly "softer" effect of his cuts was
something he either liked, or accepted. If you're very alert, you can
see the difference. That technique, however, creates an interesting
result, in that in many of his films he also accepted in-camera cuts.
So, if you have access to the strip, you can tell which is which.
Indeed, sometimes the first frame of a take which he cut to in camera
was brighter than the others, as the camera had not yet come up to
speed. I hope that our civilization survives and flourishes enough,
rather than continues to move in the opposite direction as seems to be
happening now, that a future Brakhage scholar far better than I am will
be able to use this information to note the aesthetic or structural
differences, if there are any, because cuts that arose naturally in
shooting and cuts made when editing.
Fred Camper
Chicago
On 11/10/2024 1:23 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
16mm Cheat Sheet:
1. Normal Cement splice:
there is an overlap between the two frames and part of the previous
frame is overlaid on the current one. This is the correct way to edit
camera originals for printing.
2. Bauer Cement Splice.
Totally invisible. One frame is butted against another with a V-groove
in the end of the film so there is a bit more surface area. Not very
common. Takes forever to make and is extremely weak.
3. Normal Tape Splice
Frames are butted against one another and tape applied over top. So
the frames on either side of the splice are slightly blurred while you
can often see the edges of the tape on the frames before them. If it
is made with unperforated tape and the edges trimmed, the film will
sometimes jump in the gate a bit. This is the correct way to edit
prints including workprints. It will not always go cleanly through
contact printers.
4. Kodak Presstape Splice:
A U-shaped chunk is taken out of each frame, they are butted against
one another, and splicing tape placed overtop. The U-cut is extremely
visible. This is the worst-looking splice on-screen but also the
strongest splice. A good choice for school media labs and other
applications where prints will be badly treated.
In 35mm there is enough space between frames that you can make a seamless
cement splice; the overlaid area doesn't protrude into the frame. You can't
do this in 16mm, so whenever possible it is a good idea to A-B roll camera
originals and let the contact printer do the work of switching from one roll
to the other seamlessly. That requires a lot more work in conforming or
editing and requires a lab with a printer that can manage timing marks, as
well as a person to time the print and create timing marks. This used to
add substantially to the cost of conforming and printing.
--scott
--
Frameworks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org
